CHAPTER XI.

ITALIAN PAINTING.

THE DECADENCE AND MODERN WORK. 1600-1894.

BOOKS RECOMMENDED: As before, also General Bibliography,

(page xv.); Calvi, _Notizie della vita e delle opere di Gio.

Francesco Barbiera_; Malvasia, _Felsina Pittrice_; Sir

Joshua Reynolds, _Discourses_; Symonds, _Renaissance in

Italy--The Catholic Reaction_; Willard, _Modern Italian

Art_.

THE DECLINE: An art movement in history seems like a wave that rises

to a height, then breaks, falls, and parts of it are caught up from

beneath to help form the strength of a new advance. In Italy

Christianity was the propelling force of the wave. In the Early

Renaissance, the antique, and the study of nature came in as

additions. At Venice in the High Renaissance the art-for-art's-sake

motive made the crest of light and color. The highest point was

reached then, and there was nothing that could follow but the breaking

and the scattering of the wave. This took place in Central Italy after

1540, in Venice after 1590.

Art had typified in form, thought, and expression everything of which

the Italian race was capable. It had perfected all the graces and

elegancies of line and color, and adorned them with a superlative

splendor. There was nothing more to do. The idea was completed, the

motive power had served its purpose, and that store of race-impulse

which seems necessary to the making of every great art was exhausted.

For the men that came after Michael Angelo and Tintoretto there was

nothing. All that they could do was to repeat what others had said, or

to recombine the old thoughts and forms. This led inevitably to

imitation, over-refinement of style, and conscious study of beauty,

resulting in mannerism and affectation. Such qualities marked the art

of those painters who came in the latter part of the sixteenth century

and the first of the seventeenth. They were unfortunate men in the

time of their birth. No painter could have been great in the

seventeenth century of Italy. Art lay prone upon its face under Jesuit

rule, and the late men were left upon the barren sands by the receding

wave of the Renaissance.

[Illustration: FIG. 52.--BRONZINO. CHRIST IN LIMBO. UFFIZI.]

ART MOTIVES AND SUBJECTS: As before, the chief subject of the art of

the Decadence was religion, with many heads and busts of the Madonna,

though nature and the classic still played their parts. After the

Reformation at the North the Church in Italy started the

Counter-Reformation. One of the chief means employed by this Catholic

reaction was the embellishment of church worship, and painting on a

large scale, on panel rather than in fresco, was demanded for

decorative purposes. But the religious motive had passed out, though

its subject was retained, and the pictorial motive had reached its

climax at Venice. The faith of the one and the taste and skill of the

other were not attainable by the late men, and, while consciously

striving to achieve them, they fell into exaggerated sentiment and

technical weakness. It seems perfectly apparent in their works that

they had nothing of their own to say, and that they were trying to say

over again what Michael Angelo, Correggio, and Titian had said before

them much better. There were earnest men and good painters among them,

but they could produce only the empty form of art. The spirit had

fled.

THE MANNERISTS: Immediately after the High Renaissance leaders of

Florence and Rome came the imitators and exaggerators of their styles.

They produced large, crowded compositions, with a hasty facility of

the brush and striking effects of light. Seeking the grand they

overshot the temperate. Their elegance was affected, their sentiment

forced, their brilliancy superficial glitter. When they thought to be

ideal they lost themselves in incomprehensible allegories; when they

thought to be real they grew prosaic in detail. These men are known in

art history as the Mannerists, and the men whose works they imitated

were chiefly Raphael, Michael Angelo, and Correggio. There were many

of them, and some of them have already been spoken of as the followers

of Michael Angelo.

Agnolo Bronzino (1502?-1572) was a pupil of Pontormo, and an imitator

of Michael Angelo, painting in rather heavy colors with a thin brush.

His characters were large, but never quite free from weakness, except

in portraiture, where he appeared at his best. Vasari (1511-1574)--the

same Vasari who wrote the lives of the painters--had versatility and

facility, but his superficial imitations of Michael Angelo were too

grandiose in conception and too palpably false in modelling. Salviati

(1510-1563) was a friend of Vasari, a painter of about the same cast

of mind and hand as Vasari, and Federigo Zucchero (1543-1609) belongs

with him in producing things muscularly big but intellectually small.

Baroccio (1528-1612), though classed among the Mannerists as an

imitator of Correggio and Raphael, was really one of the strong men of

the late times. There was affectation and sentimentality about his

work, a prettiness of face, rosy flesh tints, and a general lightness

of color, but he was a superior brushman, a good colorist, and, at

times, a man of earnestness and power.

[Illustration: FIG. 53.--BAROCCIO. ANNUNCIATION.]

THE ECLECTICS: After the Mannerists came the Eclectics of Bologna, led

by the Caracci, who, about 1585, sought to "revive" art. They started

out to correct the faults of the Mannerists, and yet their own art was

based more on the art of their great predecessors than on nature. They

thought to make a union of Renaissance excellences by combining

Michael Angelo's line, Titian's color, Correggio's light-and-shade and

Raphael's symmetry and grace. The attempt was praiseworthy for the

time, but hardly successful. They caught the lines and lights and

colors of the great men, but they overlooked the fact that the

excellence of the imitated lay largely in their inimitable

individualities, which could not be combined. The Eclectic work was

done with intelligence, but their system was against them and their

baroque age was against them. Midway in their career the Caracci

themselves modified their eclecticism and placed more reliance upon

nature. But their pupils paid little heed to the modification.

There were five of the Caracci, but three of them--Ludovico

(1555-1619), Agostino (1557-1602), and Annibale (1560-1609)--led the

school, and of these Annibale was the most distinguished. They had

many pupils, and their influence was widely spread over Italy. In Sir

Joshua Reynolds's day they were ranked with Raphael, but at the

present time criticism places them where they belong--painters of the

Decadence with little originality or spontaneity in their art, though

much technical skill. Domenichino (1581-1641) was the strongest of the

pupils. His St. Jerome was rated by Poussin as one of the three great

paintings of the world, but it never deserved such rank. It is

powerfully composed, but poor in coloring and handling. The painter

had great repute in his time, and was one of the best of the

seventeenth century men. Guido Reni (1575-1642) was a painter of many

gifts and accomplishments, combined with many weaknesses. His works

are well composed and painted, but excessive in sentiment and overdone

in pathos. Albani (1578-1660) ran to elegance and a porcelain-like

prettiness. Guercino (1591-1666) was originally of the Eclectic School

at Bologna, but later took up with the methods of the Naturalists at

Naples. He was a painter of far more than the average ability.

Sassoferrato (1605-1685) and Carlo Dolci (1616-1686) were so

super-saturated with sentimentality that often their skill as painters

is overlooked or forgotten. In spirit they were about the weakest of

the century. There were other eclectic schools started throughout

Italy--at Milan, Cremona, Ferrara--but they produced little worth

recording. At Rome certain painters like Cristofano Allori

(1577-1621), an exceptionally strong man for the time, Berrettini

(1596-1669), and Maratta (1625-1713), manufactured a facile kind of

painting from what was attractive in the various schools, but it was

never other than meretricious work.

[Illustration: FIG. 54.--ANNIBALE CARACCI. ENTOMBMENT OF CHRIST.

LOUVRE.]

THE NATURALISTS: Contemporary with the Eclectics sprang up the

Neapolitan school of the Naturalists, led by Caravaggio (1569-1609)

and his pupils. These schools opposed each other, and yet influenced

each other. Especially was this true with the later men, who took what

was best in both schools. The Naturalists were, perhaps, more firmly

based upon nature than the Bolognese Eclectics. Their aim was to take

nature as they found it, and yet, in conformity with the extravagance

of the age, they depicted extravagant nature. Caravaggio thought to

represent sacred scenes more truthfully by taking his models from the

harsh street life about him and giving types of saints and apostles

from Neapolitan brawlers and bandits. It was a brutal, coarse

representation, rather fierce in mood and impetuous in action, yet not

without a good deal of tragic power. His subjects were rather dismal

or morose, but there was knowledge in the drawing of them, some good

color and brush-work and a peculiar darkness of shadow masses

(originally gained from Giorgione), that stood as an ear-mark of his

whole school. From the continuous use of black shadows the school got

the name of the "Darklings," by which they are still known. Giordano

(1632-1705), a painter of prodigious facility and invention, Salvator

Rosa (1615-1673), best known as one of the early painters of

landscape, and Ribera, a Spanish painter, were the principal pupils.

THE LATE VENETIANS: The Decadence at Venice, like the Renaissance,

came later than at Florence, but after the death of Tintoretto

mannerisms and the imitation of the great men did away with

originality. There was still much color left, and fine ceiling

decorations were done, but the nobility and calm splendor of Titian's

days had passed. Palma il Giovine (1544-1628) with a hasty brush

produced imitations of Tintoretto with some grace and force, and in

remarkable quantity. He and Tintoretto were the most rapid and

productive painters of the century; but Palma's was not good in

spirit, though quite dashing in technic. Padovanino (1590-1650) was

more of a Titian follower, but, like all the other painters of the

time, he was proficient with the brush and lacking in the stronger

mental elements. The last great Italian painter was Tiepolo

(1696-1770), and he was really great beyond his age. With an art

founded on Paolo Veronese, he produced decorative ceilings and panels

of high quality, with wonderful invention, a limpid brush, and a light

flaky color peculiarly appropriate to the walls of churches and

palaces. He was, especially in easel pictures, a brilliant, vivacious

brushman, full of dash and spirit, tempered by a large knowledge of

what was true and pictorial. Some of his best pictures are still in

Venice, and modern painters are unstinted in their praise of them. He

left a son, Domenico Tiepolo (1726-1795), who followed his methods. In

the late days of Venetian painting, Canaletto (1697-1768) and Guardi

(1712-1793) achieved reputation by painting Venetian canals and

architecture with much color effect.

[Illustration: FIG. 55.--CARAVAGGIO. THE CARD PLAYERS. DRESDEN.]

NINETEENTH-CENTURY PAINTING IN ITALY: There is little in the art of

Italy during the present century that shows a positive national

spirit. It has been leaning on the rest of Europe for many years, and

the best that the living painters show is largely an echo of

Dusseldorf, Munich, or Paris. The revived classicism of David in

France affected nineteenth-century painting in Italy somewhat. Then it

was swayed by Cornelius and Overbeck from Germany. Morelli (1826-[2])

shows this latter influence, though one of the most important of the

living men.[3] In the 1860's Mariano Fortuny, a Spaniard at Rome, led

the younger element in the glittering and the sparkling, and this

style mingled with much that is more strikingly Parisian than Italian,

may be found in the works of painters like Michetti, De Nittis

(1846-1884), Favretto, Tito, Nono, Simonetti, and others.

[Footnote 2: Died, 1901.]

[Footnote 3: See _Scribner's Magazine_, Neapolitan Art, Dec., 1890,

Feb., 1891.]

Of recent days the impressionistic view of light and color has had its

influence; but the Italian work at its best is below that of France.

Segantini[4] was one of the most promising of the younger men in

subjects that have an archaic air about them. Boldini, though Italian

born and originally following Fortuny's example, is really more

Parisian than anything else. He is an artist of much power and

technical strength in _genre_ subjects and portraits. The newer men

are Fragiocomo, Fattori, Mancini, Marchetti.

[Footnote 4: Died, 1899.]

PRINCIPAL WORKS: MANNERISTS--Agnolo Bronzino, Christ in

Limbo and many portraits in Uffizi and Nat. Gal. Lon.;

Vasari, many pictures in galleries at Arezzo, Bologna,

Berlin, Munich, Louvre, Madrid; Salviati, Charity Christ

Uffizi, Patience Pitti, St. Thomas Louvre, Love and Psyche

Berlin; Federigo Zucchero, Duomo Florence, Ducal Palace

Venice, Allegories Uffizi, Calumny Hampton Court; Baroccio,

Pardon of St. Francis Urbino, Annunciation Loreto, several

pictures in Uffizi, Nat. Gal. Lon., Louvre, Dresden Gal.

ECLECTICS--Ludovico Caracci, Cathedral frescos Bologna,

thirteen pictures Bologna Gal.; Agostino Caracci, frescos

(with Annibale) Farnese Pal. Rome, altar-pieces Bologna

Gal.; Annibale Carracci, frescos (with Agostino) Farnese

Pal. Rome, other pictures Bologna Gal., Uffizi, Naples Mus.,

Dresden, Berlin, Louvre, Nat. Gal. Lon.; Domenichino, St.

Jerome Vatican, S. Pietro in Vincoli, Diana Borghese,

Bologna, Pitti, Louvre, Nat. Gal. Lon.; Guido Reni, frescos

Aurora Rospigliosi Pal. Rome, many pictures Bologna,

Borghese Gal., Pitti, Uffizi, Brera, Naples, Louvre, and

other galleries of Europe; Albani, Guercino, Sassoferrato,

and Carlo Dolci, works in almost every European gallery,

especially Bologna; Cristofano Allori, Judith Pitti, also

pictures in Uffizi; Berrettini and Maratta, many examples in

Italian galleries, also Louvre.

NATURALISTS--Caravaggio, Entombment Vatican, many other

works in Pitti, Uffizi, Naples, Louvre, Dresden, St.

Petersburg; Giordano, Judgment of Paris Berlin, many

pictures in Dresden and Italian galleries; Salvator Rosa,

best marine in Pitti, other works Uffizi, Brera, Naples,

Madrid galleries and Colonna, Corsini, Doria, Chigi Palaces

Rome.

LATE VENETIANS--Palma il Giovine, Ducal Palace Venice,

Cassel, Dresden, Munich, Madrid, Naples, Vienna galleries;

Padovanino, Marriage in Cana Kneeling Angel and other works

Venice Acad., Carmina Venice, also galleries of Louvre,

Uffizi, Borghese, Dresden, London; Tiepolo, large fresco

Villa Pisani Stra, Palazzo Labia Scuola Carmina, Venice,

Villa Valmarana, and at Wurtzburg, easel pictures Venice

Acad., Louvre, Berlin, Madrid; Canaletto and Guardi, many

pictures in European galleries.

MODERN ITALIANS[5]--Morelli, Madonna Royal chap.

Castiglione, Assumption Royal chap. Naples; Michetti, The

Vow Nat. Gal. Rome; De Nittis, Place du Carrousel Luxembourg

Paris; Boldini, Gossips Met. Mus. New York.

[Footnote 5: Only works in public places are given. Those in private

hands change too often for record here. For detailed list of works see

Champlin and Perkins, _Cyclopedia of Painters and Paintings._]

A Text-Book of the History of Painting · 第 11 / 20 章